Polyperchon As ‘Brigand’: Propaganda Or Misunderstanding?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Miscellanea / W. Heckel / Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 123-126 123 Polyperchon as ‘Brigand’: Propaganda or Misunderstanding? Anecdotal material has oft en been mined by historians for new insights, but sources like Athenaeus, Valerius Maximus and Aelian must be treated with spe- cial caution. Aelian, VH 12.43, lists a number of famous men who were allegedly of humble origin or engaged in demeaning activities. Darius III is said to have been a slave, as was Demetrius of Phalerum; the Macedonian king Archelaus was the son of a slave woman, and so forth. In this same section we are told that Anti- gonus the One-Eyed had once been a farmer (or peasant)1) and Polysperchon [sc. Polyperchon] a brigand (᾽Αντίγονος ὁ Φιλίππου, ὁ καὶ ἑτερόφθαλμος καὶ ἐκ τούτου Κύκλωψ προσαγορευθείς, αὐτουργός ἦν. Πολυσπέρχων δὲ ἐλῄστευε). Indeed, it was common for political rivals (especially orators) to remark upon the base origins of their opponents or of those closely associated with them. Hence, Aeschines is called an actor and a schoolteacher (grammatodidaskalos) and the son of a woman devoted to the cult of Dionysus.2) But not all such com- ments have their origins in contemporary propaganda or name-calling. Where Aelian derived his information about Antigonus, I cannot say,3) but the case of Polyperchon is more clear cut. Although it is tempting to view the charge that Polyperchon was once a ban- dit as the product of the propaganda wars of the Successors, the truth appears to be much simpler. Curtius, 4.13.8-9, claims that, aft er Polyperchon supported Parmenion’s proposal4) of a night-attack on the Persians at Gaugamela, Alexan- der responded as follows: 1) Th at is, one who worked his own land without the help of slaves. 2) For Aeschines see D. 18.258-60, 19.199-200, 249, 281; Quint. 2.17.12; [Plu.] Mor. 340a-b (= vit. X or.); Str. 10.3.18 C471. 3) Billows 1990, 15 n. 3: “None of this has much value: Aelian’s statement is from a list of some twenty-one mostly untrue defamations of famous men and is worthless . .” Diod. 21.1 says ᾽Αντίγονος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐξ ἰδιώτου γενόμενος δυνάστης. Compare Justin 13.4.10, who describes Ptolemy as quem ex gregario milite Alexander virtutis causa provexe- rat. Anson (2004, 35 n. 4) considers these stories ‘rags-to-riches’ accounts and suggests that they derive from Duris of Samos. But the ancients did not share our notion that it was a badge of honour to be termed a ‘self-made man’. 4) Much has been written about the rejection of Parmenion’s advice by Alexander. See Carney 2000, 263-85. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156852507X165892 MMNEMOSYNENEMOSYNE 660,1_1950_f9_123-1260,1_1950_f9_123-126 112323 22/5/07/5/07 77:10:26:10:26 PPMM 124 Miscellanea / W. Heckel / Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 123-126 Latrunculorum . et furum ista sollertia est, quam precipitis mihi: quippe illorum uotum unicum est fallere. Meae uero gloriae semper aut absentiam Darei aut angus- tias locorum aut furtum noctis obstare non patiar. ‘Th is trick, which you recommend to me, is proper to brigands and thieves. I will not allow Darius’ absence or the narrowness of terrain or nighttime deception always to detract from my glory.’5) It is almost certainly this passage, with its comment on latrunculi, that gave rise to the story that Polyperchon had once been a brigand. But we need not assume that Aelian or his source took the information directly from Curtius, although this is not impossible.6) Alexander’s rejection of a night-attack as the tactic of bandits is found in the Greek sources as well (Plu. Alex. 31.12: οὐ κλέπτω τὴν νίκην. Cf. Arr. 3.10.2: αἰσχρὸν εἶναι κλέψαι τὴν νίκην). Plutarch (Alex. 31.10) adds that not only Parmenion but also the older hetairoi (οἱ δὲ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν ἑταίρων) favoured a night-attack, and that they went to Alexander in a delega- tion (31.11: προσελθόντες ἔπειθον αὐτὸν ἐπιχειρῆσαι νύκτωρ τοῖς πολεμίοις). Polyperchon belonged to this ‘older’ group, as is clear from Diod. 18.48.4 (Πολυπέρχοντα . ., πρεσβύτατον σχεδὸν ὄντα τῶν ᾽Αλεξάνδρῳ συνεστρατευμέ- νων) and Justin 12.12.8 (sed et ex amicis dimissi senes Polypercon, Clitos, Gorgias, Polydamas, . Antigenes).7) If Curtius himself chose to insert Polyperchon into the story, we shall have to ask what prompted him to pick Polyperchon, and not someone else. It appears more likely that Polyperchon’s role was already part of the Cleitarchean tradition, which Plutarch in this instance paraphrased and abbreviated, thus not mentioning him by name. Th e story of the night-attack is omitted entirely by Diodorus, and in Arrian it is introduced (again in an abbre- viated fashion) as a logos. We may be virtually certain that the charge of ‘ban- 5) Darius did not take part in the battle of the Granicus in 334, and in 333 he could argue that Alexander’s victory was attributable to the restricted terrain at Issus. Th ere the mountains on one side and the sea on the other negated the numerical superiority of the Persian forces. 6) Curtius’ comment namque Parmenionem nuper acrius quam uellet increpitum rursus castigare non sustinebat (4.13.8) is important. Was it Curtius who first recognized that Parmenion was being criticized excessively, or Cleitarchus, or even Callisthenes himself? One of these writers, at least, was clever enough to notice that the repeated denigration of Parmenion might strike the reader as excessive. 7) For his career see Heckel 1992, 188-204, though I would now retract the suggestion that Aelian’s claim that he was a brigand was “a slanderous charge which may have its origins in the nature of his campaigns in the last decade or so of his life” (188). MMNEMOSYNENEMOSYNE 660,1_1950_f9_123-1260,1_1950_f9_123-126 112424 22/5/07/5/07 77:10:27:10:27 PPMM.